set_brackets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a mutating operation and the 'clear' option signals destructiveness. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether setting one bracket preserves the other, what happens if no matching position exists, or whether changes are reversible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence with no filler; the action verbs are front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning. It is concise without being under-specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The parameter schema fills in the details for symbol, position_id, clear, and prices, but the description alone does not explain behavior when only one bracket is set, how clear interacts with prices, or how to route between this and sibling order tools. With no output schema or annotations, these gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond naming the two bracket fields. This meets the baseline for a schema-covered tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action set (add, change, or clear) with a clear resource (stop loss / take profit on an open position). This distinguishes it from sibling order tools like modify_order and close_position, even without naming them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'on an open position' implies when the tool should be used, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over modify_order or place_order, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage context is clear but not fully spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.